Well, having a quick look at the various news sites this morning, I'm not seeing any "comeback kid" or "NObama knock out punch" or any such nonsense. I'm seeing items about how feisty the debate was and how it compared to other debates. So I guess that's a BIG WIN for Romney! Because if the MSM aren't cheerleading for NObama this morning, it means he lost, but they won't admit it. Romney all the way! Can't wait for the next debate!
who cheats and lies? News:
"a top Obama campaign worker gleefully helps an undercover reporter obtain ballots in two states. The reporter identifies herself as an Obama supporter who has illegally registered in Florida and Texas."
If I were a liberal, my first words would have been about much too much fat in Candy's brains and "all around, on the right, left ,front, back, and on her face".
But I am not, so I will not say so ;)
However, helping FuBar Ack by giving him extra 10% or so time,
"Explaining" to Romney his position,
and many more "infractions" shows that she is a liberal hack.
Romney did Great. If you agree take the CNN Poll in the lower right corner.
ROMNY MUST correct that in the next debate and say something like this:
"Candy admitted later that Prezzy did NOT called it a terrorist attack next day, which means BOTH of them WERE LYING."
Assessment by CNN:
Obama gets a draw. Not only did the emperor have no clothes, he made it extremely evident when he bent over and started talking out of his rear end......and it's considered a "Draw".
Romney hooked and baited Obama so many times that I started to think that Candy was on Romney's side, considering some of the questions that got asked.
Did anyone else see Romney try to get Obama to bring up the 47% line more than once? Romney mentioned how he cared for 100% of the country right away and (in my opinion it was deliberate) when did Obama bring it up? Right at the end when Romney couldn't respond. PFFT!
That was worse for Obama than the first debate against Romney. Not only did Obama have no answers, but Romney seemed to know what Obama's excuses were going to be before he made them. Did you hear the audience laugh when Obama said that we didn't want to go back to the kind of economy when he was elected and gas was a "buck-eightyone or whatever" because that was sign of an economy in free-fall?
OMG...someone on Frank Lnutz' focus group said Obama has been "bullsh*tt'n" the people for the last four years!! LMAO!!!!!!!!
BE AU TI FUL !! Thank you once again Right scoop!! Bringing it to us in truth and honesty, one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all! Just like our pledge of allegiance, On the backs of our heroic patriots.
None of these debates matter. I didn't watch, because I can't stand watching that dangerous psychopath. Romney wins in a landslide. It's going to be a humiliating defeat for Zero. A deserving humiliation, though.
On FoxBusiness 68% in their poll, say Romney won. I had the sound off, so I dont know the specifics.
Well, I need a drink.
I cant believe the outright lie about Behghazi and calling it a terrorist attack. Now the media is spinning that he said something about terror on the sunday, What? Its not the same AND we all know it.
obama couldn't answer a question about what he had accomplished, he would simply go off on some tanget without ever answer anything.
It appeared to me that Obama got the last word on the final three questions, so I went through a transcript of the debate to make sure. It turns out I was right. In fact, Obama got the last word on four of the five final questions. That's a huge advantage because Romney had no chance to respond to Obama's lies near the end of the debate. Even when Romney had the last response on the fourth-to-last question, he was interrupted by both Obama and Crowley, and he was cut off before he could finish his rebuttal. That was the "terrorism" in Libya question where Crowley interrupted Romney to defend Pres. Obama with false information. Was this an oversight? Or was it planned ahead of time to help Obama?
The line that did it for me is when Obama said that when gas was at $1.82/gal that was a sign of a bad economy..omg, he has no idea how the economy works. He thinks that high gas prices are a sign of a good economy..omg...that is really stupid and scary.
he did the 47% at the end, was wondering when he would pull that one out............gads, i need a drink, the bs coming out of bambams mouth.............
Debate was a tie in terms of performance. In terms of facts, Romney takes it out. Giuliani was right. Romney is never bad at a debate. He's good and could have been better. And can be great, but never bad.
You could be independent, and never vote for a democrat. There are some advantages in being independent. I am considering it after 22 years as a republican.
Yeah, but what other choices do you have? You can either vote for a liberal or a Republican/Conservative!
No other time in history has there EVER been a more distinctive choice in ideology!
Had a migraine yesterday- sorry to be late in replying.
Did Jesus not fulfill the law by living a perfect life? Mercy, lovingkindness, and forgiveness are all talked about in the Old Testament.
You said: 'When Christians seek to use force to manipulate society toward our moral precepts, it has consequences spiritually that are negative toward the cause of saving those who do not know Christ. '
To carry your statement to its logical conclusion, you would have to also believe when Christians used government to put laws on the book not to steal and not to kill, it has consequences that are negative toward the cause of saving those who do not know Christ.
Please see: Romans 13:1-6
I Peter 2:20 NAS "For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God."
Now you say the distinction you draw is when you cause harm to others or their property. This is what illegal drug use typically leads to. You are not only harming yourself, you could harm others if you get behind the wheel, you harm others when you don't properly care for and abuse your children, cause medical costs to go up for others by the medical problems incurred with drug use, often steal to support the habit or turn to prostitution and spread sexually transmitted diseases, have abortions, can cause fires while you are not with it enough to realize what you are doing, encourage kids to start doing drugs, etc., etc., etc..
If welfare is not there (and even for some though it is available), you get more homelessness and people living on the streets from those who get addicted to drugs. Not having welfare will not be a sufficient deterrent for those seeking the high, the escape, the ecstasy of drugs. But if someone is seen to be on illegal drugs, I would agree to a law that would prevent them from collecting welfare from the government.
Welfare within the church is to provide for the widows and the orphans and if we see a brother in need. If a man is able to work but is lazy, he should not eat.
You said, "Behavior regulation through the use of the force of law goes against biblical teaching as well."
This is an utterly false statement. God ordained many laws that had to do with behavior regulation.
Your concept of Christian non-interventionism flies in the face of Romans 13:1-6.
You said: When non-Christians understand that Christians don't want to control their lives, they accept them into their lives.
Who non-Christians are really rebelling against is God Himself, libertifirst. They who are not chosen of God also would willfully reject their Creator (Romans 1) even if they did not see any Christians who were a poor testimony.
You say "Legalizing drugs will not curb usage unless it is regulated"
I believe there is supposed to be regulation on medical marijuana, legalized by some states. Yet, I also think with this legalization, that the use of the legalized substance as not decreased, but has instead increased, and I don't think that all of the people are dying of something painful, such as cancer who use marijuana. (I also don't agree with legalization by the states for medicinal purposes.)
People are required to wear safety belts in the front seat for their own protection. This is a law that when followed, has improved the situation of car accident deaths in our country. I believe that not only for the protection of others, as I mentioned before, but for the protection of our citizens themselves, harmful illegal drugs should remain illegal.
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams (The Works of John Adams, ed. C. F. Adams, Boston: Little, Brown Co., 1851, 4:31)
(quote source: http://www.cancertutor.com/Quotes/Quotes_Presidents.html)
I don't know that we can bring our opinions together on this issue, but it has been a good conversation.
Legalizing it is not the answer period.
And as I mentioned, drug addicts find ways to support their habit (prostitution is an example).
If a man does not work, neither let him eat. He who does not provide for his own is worse than an unbeliever. Even wealthy people have to be able to function at some level and there are people who were doing fine financially whose lives were ruined by their choice to start drugs (and likely a lot of them started with marijuana).
Heroin is one of the most destructive drugs in our society. It can cause addiction with the first use of it.
A working society with no welfare system is a more moral society, as the bible teaches that being idle is the devil's workshop. Those who are addicted to heroin cannot be productive and safe workers. They would not be able to provide for themselves in society. Others who work hard to make a living would not support them. Their addiction to heroin would end before it became a problem for themselves or others.
Those who could afford to be heroin addicts would be those who are independently wealthy, and do not have to function on a productive level daily. The rest of society would see the destruction of these people's lives and reject the behavior based on the outcome. If we have free government drug addiction programs and social welfare, the lessons won't be learned, and the consequences won't take hold.
Legalizing it, in and of itself is not the answer.
There is nothing that you just said that I disagree with, if we lived in a world that was 100% professed Christians. Everything that you said is absolutely true for those who have entered into a covenant with God, and through Jesus Christ.
The law was given to show us our sin, and that we could never live up to the law. Jesus said that He did not come to change the law, but to fulfill it. In fulfilling it, he meant applying mercy, love, and forgiveness. This was a new concept at the time, as you may well know.
When Christians seek to use force to manipulate society toward our moral precepts, it has consequences spiritually that are negative toward the cause of saving those who do not know Christ. Paul the apostle taught that we cannot judge the world, but that we can other Christians, so what you speak about is ok within the church.
Christ led by example, and not by the use of force and condemnation. We are to save others through example, and are to never use force. Paul also talked extensively about legalism. He even had a falling out with Peter about it. Peter got caught up with a crowd that was preaching circumcision for salvation, which is no different than many today who preach baptism for salvation. Works do not save, and the law only condemns. Are we to save the world with the law, or with love, mercy, and acceptance? How do people respond to religious legalism, who are not saved? Christians cause others to rebel against God because of what we do in forcing our morality on them through government, as well as other means.
The distinction that I use to differentiate between that which is righteous in the law of the land, and that which is not, is that anything that does harm directly to another person or their property should be illegal. Anything that is only damaging to the individual, or their property, is not righteous within the law of the land.
Liberty is a concept that is lost if we pick and choose which ones we are going to allow people to engage in. Abortion kills babies - illegal. A child getting into a controlled substance - illegal. Legalizing drugs doesn't mean that we don't consider them to be a controlled substance. Alcohol is a controlled substance.
Some people may end up on welfare because of drugs, but if welfare is not there, then natural consequences will have a chance to regulate behavior before drugs become a habitual problem for people. Natural consequences are God's creation, and they are also God's regulation. We infringe upon God's plan by intervening with welfare. It is wrong, according to the bible, to take those consequences away. Another reason that the social systems are immoral. Rather than letting God work, we step in with welfare.
Behavior regulation through the use of the force of law goes against biblical teaching as well. Did biblical law change the morality of the Jews? The Pharisees are the best example to answer that question with. Why do we think that we can create a more moral society by forcing people to obey our moral constructs?
One practical application of this concept is the fact that many liberals are flocking to Libertarianism. They do so regardless of the fact that the moral basis for Libertarianism is the concept of Christian non-interventionism. The bible teaches that Christians should avoid offending others, even when they practice their pagan rituals and immorality (under God's law) that is not harmful to others. These liberals say "hey, I don't have a problem with these people because they don't want to tell me what to do". Then they learn the principles of liberty, and accept conservatism on many issues such as finances. As Libertarians accept them, they come into the fold and progress toward a higher level of morality.
This works the same with Christianity. When non-Christians understand that Christians don't want to control their lives, they accept them into their lives. That gives Christians the opportunity to witness by example. Main stream Christian conservatives go out into the world to pass laws to stop personal behavior that only harms the individual practicing the behavior. Non-Christians see this and reject God based on our bad witness, and use of force.
We don't have to give up what we believe, nor keep quiet. We just need to quit using force to control people when it isn't critical to do so.
Legalizing drugs will not curb usage unless it is regulated, and there is no welfare system to fund it, and take away the consequences of doing it. We will never improve the situation with laws, and we will never end the behavior in a fallen world.
Does this mean you are not in favor of legalizing opium in this country, since you are pointing out the criminality in government of using our military to protect it?
Do you think that maybe those people wound up on welfare- at least some of them- due to their drug addiction? Drug addiction crosses soci-economic lines, not only affecting the poor, though I believe addiction can drive a person to the streets. But famous people, such as Whitney Houston to name one example, also have done drugs.
You said: 'The more laws that we have, the more criminals we have. When we have more criminals, the criminal mindset changes morality in society.'
Criminal mindset comes from people being in rebellion against God. Rebellion against authority when it comes to choosing to do illegal drugs in the first place just a symptom of it.
To borrow your logic, what if someone suggested if we made abortion illegal, the cost of abortions, since they would be against the law, would go up? And the more laws we have, the more criminals we have. But you believe abortion is wrong... the act of abortion is wrong, regardless of whether government makes a law about it or not.
And the problem is, doing drugs is wrong too and can even kill in some cases. Marijuana is often a step toward harder drugs and has side effects of its own. Ruined minds, aged bodies, hurting those around them they love, child neglect, leaving drugs lying around for them to get into.... where does it stop? With a mind wasted by drugs, where do these people wind up? Sometimes on the streets as prostitutes (drug addicts often find ways to support their addiction), and even sometimes dead.
I've been hearing of big tax revenues raked in from 'medical marijuana' and it likely won't be long if the country continues on its current trajectory before you get your desire (if you still feel the same way) of drugs becoming legal that aren't under federal law now.... and likely will wish you hadn't.
You said: 'When government has so many laws that literally everyone in society is in jeopardy of breaking laws without even knowing it, the people lean toward rebellion. Rebellion is a negative mindset that parallels criminality.'
What you are saying makes me think of God's law (Who also instructs on the role of government)... everyone is breaking God's law every day! People are bent on rebellion against God. And it is definitely criminal that people sin against God!
Romans 7:7 NAS 'What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET."'
http://www.thelandofthefree.net/quotationchristian.html (source of quotes below)
"The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scripture ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evil men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." - Noah Webster
"History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed in to political and economic decline." - Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in the Pacific during WWII
"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority for that law which is divine...far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other." - James Wilson (signatory of the Constitution)
For myself as a Christian, I find Scripture informing me I should take care of my body. (I Cor. 6:19-20)
I believe that study showed that drug use was HARMFUL to society, otherwise, it would not have been outlawed in the first place. There is the burden on families, the medical costs of drug addiction that can drive of medical insurance costs, the neglect and abuse of children, driving while under the influence with impaired concentration.
I just wanted to add that the criminality in government is now using our military to protect opium crops in Afghanistan. The opium industry there has increased ten fold. That opium makes its way to its largest market in the Us in the form of heroin.
The cartels would lose their customers. The industry would move away from criminals and into the regulatory system in the US. Marijuana imports would literally evaporate, as it is easily cultivated with the homes of people who want to use it.
Drugs in general would still exist, but usage would be reduced considerably. This can only happen by ending welfare. Most of the destructive drug use is directly linked to welfare recipients. They receive free money and rent. They use their food stamps to trade for drugs, and they lose any moral integrity through the process of being a part of the welfare system. It used to be that people were ashamed to be on welfare, but that is not the case now, much of the time.
When anything that people may want is made illegal, the price goes up, and it never ceases to exist in society. This creates an underclass of crime that is not just directly linked to the drug, or whatever it is. The more laws that we have, the more criminals we have. When we have more criminals, the criminal mindset changes morality in society.
When government has so many laws that literally everyone in society is in jeopardy of breaking laws without even knowing it, the people lean toward rebellion. Rebellion is a negative mindset that parallels criminality. This is why making new laws and using force on society has its limits as to how effective it can be to maintain a peaceful society.
As criminality compounds through this process, the people running the government become more and more criminal. The people in the private sector become more criminal due to the laws that other criminals make. Government has to increase its use of force to control the criminality of society. The more force that is used, the more rebellion we have, which compounds criminality.
It is a vicious cycle of perpetual criminality that leads to the economic and moral destruction of a society. This is where the drug war is headed. We are doing a lot more to destroy the economic prosperity as well, which compounds criminality as well. Poor people do things that they would not if they were not poor.
I am not saying that money will solve all of our problems, but I do recognize the pragmatic consequences of actions taken by the State, and toward the people. At some point liberty has its benefits above that which a repressive government can offer.
When people have to produce to survive, they cannot afford to be drug addicts. Other people who have to produce don't tend to support the bad habits of those who don't produce, and without welfare drug addicts don't have any support for their addictions.
Libertarians look at what our society is producing now, and what this alternative would produce, then they choose the course that would do the least amount of harm, and with the least amount of moral hazard. I see this as the more Christian thing to do. It does not equate to supporting drug use.
Why would end cartels? Drugs would still be profitable, I imagine, as it already is here with 'medical marijuana'. And people often don't stick to marijuana, which has its own detrimental effects, but move onto harder drugs from there. Then there's meth and bath salts and synthetic drugs. People can steal for their drug habit, they prostitute themselves for their drug habit, they endanger children with their drug habit.
What if shop lifting was getting worse every year (might be true with this bad economy, I don't know)? Would you say, we should just go ahead and make it legal, because it's not going away- it just gets worse every year? I don't think you would because it hurts other people. But I see that drug usage has a way of hurting not only the person taking them, but other people as well.
The alternative would be a relationship with the living Saviour!
That is not a popular position, but it is a Christian one. It cannot be denied by Christians when the bible teaches it clearly. (I suppose they can deny it, but.......)
I can totally empathize with your position on the drug issue, as I held it for a long time. I have been forced to consider what the limits of "force to curb behavior" are. This has caused me to consider alternative tactics on these issues. None of the answers I have come up with are probable, so I don't hold my breath, but I do see how ending welfare would end a lot of drug use. I also understand the concept that legalization would end the cartels, and limit the damage through regulation by the state. (such as the case with alcohol) I also just don't see any of it going away, and it is getting worse every year.
As Christians, we also need to provide a good example for society, and a good alternative to a destructive lifestyle.
God did make women different than men- both made in His image, but both different. Women are the weaker vessel (I Peter 3:7). Women should nurture their children and train them up in the way they should go- if they are distracted with all the stresses of being President, how much will go neglected with their offspring, how much quality time will be lost in those growing up years? Women tend to be more emotional generally, whereas men are generally wired for logic. Logic is very important for a President.
But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. I Timothy 2:13-15
I don't believe a woman should be the Commander and Chief of the armed forces. Being President is tough enough on a man- look at how they age when they are president! And what gender did God pick when Israel rejected Him as their King?
Couldn't have said it better myself. I have been saying that a rebellion would never win anyway, and you stated the reasons why.
The bible says that a woman cannot be in authority over a man in the church. This causes some to consider how this translates into society. Why does God say this? I tend to think that God says this because a woman is designed for the purpose of nurturing. She takes things to heart much more than a man does. (generally speaking) God designed men to be more capable of making the hard decisions and sticking with them, and holds him accountable for it in the home.
Does this transfer to societal leadership?
I remember in debate, he wanted the decision to go back to the states. I felt Ron Paul was naive in what seemed to be his assumption that all the states' majorities would be on the side of life.
Drug use is up due to 'medical marijuana' being legalized in some states, due to the war on drugs being diminished compared to how it was back when Nancy Reagan took up the cause, due to the rotten public school system, and most of all due to sin and the fiber of the family being largely demolished in this country.
Can you imagine if someone used the argument (if it were true) that people not wearing safety belts has increased in this country since it became a requirement by law in front seats, so maybe we should do away with the requirement? Not wearing safety belts in the front seat of cars leads to more fatalities with accidents. And marijuana often leads to addiction to harder drugs, besides having harmful side effects of its own.
Bring back to work requirement Obama has messed with when it comes to welfare.
I agree with you....I think it's staged, and it has been setup over the past couple years. It's the only way to explain the Fed's actions and the actions under this POTUS. I'm not a wacky person, I'm just a realist that deals with what I see going on and draw my own conclusions.
.....but before that happens, lets at least fight the good fight. The Federal government has taken land, which I think is collateral for debt owed (think I......but if the people don't let it happen, it can be curbed- provided that they are informed. This is the beginning of a long fight for freedom, but don't allow or facilitate the potentially anarchic situation which may arise. I don't want it because it opens the door for government to subdue any threat and act against its own citizens.
I don't want to put my country through a possible century of hell, just because I was dissatisfied with the current government's direction. Lets work to turn it around, rather than shake it all up and see what happens; because the truth is that when you have almost 50% of the people that think they deserve someone else's property, and only about 20-30% that believe otherwise (and maybe 1/3 of those that believe it's worth fighting for), you are cutting your own throat, because the mushy people in the middle will side with the largest show of force, which will be those with the power of the government/military/population.
Paul calls it murder. He also said that the republican congress under Bush could have negated R-V-W with a simple majority vote. This would put it back to the states, but I don' think that he was saying the states should decide. He was simply wanting to make a difference for a change.
He did say that drugs should go back to the states. This makes me wonder if it wouldn't be a bad idea.
Drug use is up due to abolition, so something should change. The welfare state is actually funding most of the drug problem as well. Get rid of welfare, and most of the drug purchases go away.
I don't know- probably a number. As for me, I don't believe a woman was designed by God for the role and stress of being President.
It appears to me that some of the guys who have been in long enough, and are part of the establishment, are able to defraud the voters through "election" fraud. I have seen some cases where it didn't seem possible for them to win, but the pulled it out in contradiction will all the polls.
Electronic voting, and vote counting, needs to go away.
Some of us have been trying that for over twenty years, or longer. No progress yet.
I think that is why RP has so many ardent supporters. People believe him when he says he will do, or not do, something. It is so rare nowadays that those who have that going for them are going to get a lot of support.
Just think of how many people would jump ship if Palin went third party.
Oh, yes. I forgot about that... I don't agree with Ron Paul thinking Iran is not a threat. When we know about an impending threat, such as Iran's rapidly developing nuclear capability, that's in our interests and Congress ought to support a preemptive strike before Iran strikes both our ally Israel and us!
I wish I heard libertarians, such as Ron Paul is pretty much, articulating that. Romney has the same position of leaving it to the states- bad position.
I haven't decided yet, and won't for quite a while.
I am predicting that we will have a major financial crash within the next year. It may be severe enough to lose our sovereignty as a nation. If we go the way of Europe, the people will be taken out of the process completely, because we will be merged with other nation states after the collapse. I don't see the Fed Note lasting much longer, and we are about to lose world reserve status.
It is not that finances are the main priority, but the consequences of a financial collapse will override any other issues. The executive orders are in place, and the police state is as well. We could lose our elections and see a complete infrastructure takeover by government.
This perspective doesn't really allow for a long term solution. I will wait it out, and we will see.
I think there are some non-believers who are also conservatives. If the candidates make their positions clear & have the track record to back up their claimed positions, that's what it takes.
Abortion is already covered by federal law. They can prosecute murder. They just need to declare it murder, and negate Roe V Wade.
What about a "Christian Conservative" party. Churches could be used to spread the word and organize.
Except that they would have to give up their tax exempt status to be involved.
Whenever I hear conservatives/tea party/constitutionalists speak this way, I shudder. Not because you're wrong, but because your strategy is wrong. How did Communists/Marxists/Socialists get their power in this government? They infiltrated the power structure, which is the same thing we have to do within our own party. It will take time, but the progressives learned over 100+ years how to do it.....it would be stupid to not follow their lead, considering they were successful. While it is true that the Republicans are clamping down on their power structure to keep people out- it can be done, although it will also take time. Too many voters are only partially informed or misinformed so it would be nearly impossible to create the vast movement to a new party without ceding valuable time and progression that we can't afford to lose.
I am open to that. We need to consider how much organization it takes to get people on ballots. It takes time, money, and a lot of people to get it going. That is why I am looking at established third parties. We don't have much time left.
Those issues are the greatest divide between the two conservative parties. (other than foreign policy)
It is tough trying to figure out what would yield the best results overall. As I said, the pubs are not doing it when they have the power. How long should we put up with it, and how do we get them to move? We fight and spend our money supporting them, and they turn on us every time. They have the electoral process tied up and control the power structure in the states and D.C. The RINOs are holding the process hostage, along with the democraps.
I fear that we need a revolt to change anything. (political)
Many of us are not going to forget the fraudulent vote on rule changes that took power away from local and state republicans. (at the convention)
I don't agree with libertarians on legalizing harmful marijuana and leaving abortion and marriage to the states.
Most libertarians identify with the Tea Party, so it is quite possible. The GOP pushed and forced Romney on us. Due to that fact, many will abandon the pubs if Romney screws up.
If they get a pro-life, pro-marriage tea partier running against Romney in 2016, I'd like to vote for them!
I don't think we will either, because I have studied bible prophesy.
Libertarians are much more conservative than republicans nowadays. People tend to think that they are liberal on social issues, but they actually follow biblical principles better. They advocate the same thing that God does for their fellow human beings, which is don't use force to change people (doesn't work anyway), and let people suffer the consequences of their own actions to reform them. Republicans have been supporting socialism for too long, and are still advocating "shoring up" the social systems, while libertarians are saying "get rid of them".
I just don't see republicans taking any ground, even when they can. This includes abortion. Libertarians, largely, advocate for abortion to be called murder, because they are staunch believers in "do no harm to others". There are liberal Libertarians, but most of the ones that I have followed are staunch conservatives.
I have been listening to Gary Johnson lately, and he makes a lot of sense. He advocates for getting rid of the IRS and creating a consumption tax. This gives government incentive to grow consumption which means that they have to get out of the way to get income.
I am not defecting any time soon. I want to see what happens after this election cycle. If Romney continues the Obama/Bush agenda, I am probably out. The GOP really screwed up when they changed the rules at the convention. They will have many defectors over that, as they take power from the local and state republicans and put it in the hands of a "presumed nominee". It was the antithesis of free election by the people.
I don't think either one is a reasonable vote. If you vote that way it's a "statement" vote. Nothing more.
As America continues to lose its moral standing folks will begin to become more liberal in their thinking. Liberals are the party of the anti-god vote. And God is a name of the past in many people's minds today. We're noticing that shift in the youth vote already. A generation or two from now you're going to see an entirely different America. The libs will regroup. Repackage their message to a younger generation and the vote will shift as the older morally aware gernation passes on.
The only thing that can stop it is a shift in moral aptitude and only God can do that in the heart. But folks don't want God, so the downward spiral will continue and radicals will capitalize on that.
Look at France. It is a model of things to come unless we change course in the heart. The Founders knew this. Unless we figure it out, and I don't think we will, we're doomed already.
My vote doesn't count anyway, so I was thinking about helping their numbers. Waiting to see if my vote could possibly make a difference for Romney, but it has been several decades since Oregon counted in a presidential election.
I don't like the green party. Thinking Libertarian or constitution. They have a ways to go before they can compete.
I'm looking at third parties. I am really disappointed with republicans right now. I am starting to advocate for a mass third party movement. If the pubs get enough Tea Party types to make a difference, then I will reconsider. I have two more years to decide.
But then have you no say in who becomes the Republican candidates, in trying to get the most conservative ones?
I don't enjoy the thought either. But, hey, someone has to step up. I am considering county commissioner. Someone needs to get in locally on apposing Agenda 21.
I really have to study up on it a bit more to decide. I will make a decision that will yield the best result. If republicans in my state are headed the right direction, I will stick with them. If they continue their fraudulent tactics to keep Tea Party types out, I will not. Even the pubs in Oregon don't seem to want conservatism to prevail, and the two parties control the rules that shut out anyone else.
We'll see how it goes over the next two years. I have actually been considering running for local office myself, and probably would not switch if I did.